1964 Ford Falcon vs. 2002 MCC Smart
To start off, 2002 MCC Smart is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Ford Falcon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Ford Falcon would be higher. At 2,890 cc (8 cylinders), 1964 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Ford Falcon (282 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 202 more horse power than 2002 MCC Smart. (80 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Smart. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 MCC Smart weights approximately 116 kg more than 1964 Ford Falcon.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1964 Ford Falcon (244 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 134 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Smart. (110 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1964 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Smart.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Ford Falcon | 2002 MCC Smart | |
| Make | Ford | MCC |
| Model | Falcon | Smart |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2002 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 2890 cc | 698 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 282 HP | 80 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 244 Nm | 110 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 20.2:1 | 9.0:1 |
| Acceleration 0-100mph | 8 seconds | 11.2 seconds |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 700 kg | 816 kg |
